have led to many of our present troubles. I recognize that in many regards the Federal Government has a bad record too. But by insuring that it has a large piece of the action, I think we will insure a much broader perspective in the management of Alaska's wildlife

resources.

Mr. LEGGETT. Of course, our Federal people only comprise 10 percent of the people that you have here in the State managing the

resource.

Mr. HABER. Yes.

Mr. LEGGETT. Do you want a lot of new people from the Lower 48 to come here?

Mr. HABER. The point is that the management decisions won't be made strictly by the people who are here. I am suggesting that more weight should be given to the viewpoints of persons living outside the boundaries of Alaska. I think it's important for you to remember, too, that a good percentage of the present population of Alaska are relatively recent arrivals, like myself. There's a relatively small percentage of the State population that has been around for longer than 30 or 40 years.

The problems I refer to, expecially the overharvesting of wildlife resources, I would attribute ultimately to a lack of a systems perspective. But this is a problem that's inherent to resource management in general, not just wildlife management, and to the management of our socioeconomic systems. We tend to view pieces rather than wholes. That just does not work because when you look at pieces as individual entities they behave one way, when you put the pieces together as a system they can behave in a quite different and often counterintuitive way. Until we start taking more of a systems perspective, we aren't going to know which way is up.

Mr. LEGGETT. Very good. Do my colleagues have questions?

Mr. FORSYTHE. Millions of them but I'm not going ta ask a one. Mr. LEGGETT. Very good. Thank you very much. You've been a very attentive audience. The meeting will stand adjourned and we will resume tomorrow.

[Whereupon, 6:30 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned to reconvene on August 8, 1977.]

ALASKA LANDS

MONDAY, AUGUST 8, 1977

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE

CONSERVATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT,

COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES,

Anchorage, Alaska.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:50 a.m., in the cafeteria of East Anchorage High School, Hon. Robert L. Leggett (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. LEGGETT. The meeting of the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment will come to order. I'd like to welcome you here today. The testimony heard yesterday will be very helpful to the committee.

Our first witness today will be Mr. Tyler Jones, coordinator for Senator Gravel. Mr. Jones?

Mr. JONES. Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee.

[Mr. Jones read the prepared statement of Senator Mike Gravel.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR MIKE GRAVEL, PRESENTED BY
TYLER JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman and committee members, Senator Gravel could not be here today and asked that I read his written statement into the record.

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I commend you on holding this series of hearings in Alaska. Your interest in hearing from the people who will be most affected by the legislation before you is to be applauded and is most appreciated.

As I understand, these hearings are focusing on H.R. 6564, H.R. 1652 and H.R. 5605 which have been referred to your subcommittee. In addition, the refuge proposals contained in H.Ř. 39 are being considered, although this legislation has not yet been referred to the subcommittee.

I know you can appreciate the confusion that has arisen in the minds of many Alaskans over this plethora of D-2 legislation and the apparent jurisdictional overlapping of several subcommittees. This has not helped clarify an already complex legislative situation. The task before this subcommittee is great and I hope from these hearings and your subsequent deliberations that you can sort through the various measures with an eye toward dispensing with the many redundancies, contradictions, and pie-in-the-sky proposals contained

in the various bills. We need your help in developing realistic, comprehensive legislation which will not flounder in Congress, locked in subcommittee tug-of-wars, but can expeditiously and equitably settle the D-2 question in Alaska.

H.R. 6564 is, of course, the old Morton proposal. As you know, the new administration has not endorsed this bill but it is now developing its own recommendations for presentation in September. Although this prior proposal did not address satisfactorily several critical elements, such as access across designated lands, subsistence uses and alternative resource users, I think the areas identified in the Morton proposal were generally well thought out and closely tied to nationally significant resources.

In contrast, I feel that H.R. 1652 represents a once-over-lightly, first cut attempt at lands identification. Boundaries have obviously been drawn around all waterfowl nesting habitats in Alaska with little regard for the many other land uses and mixed land ownership patterns which prevail in these areas. In short, the resource analysis and basic planning have not been done for this proposal. For example, the bill creates a North Slope National Wildlife Refuge which would include the entire Prudhoe Bay oil and gas field and most of the national petroleum reserve in Alaska. Not only would the Nation's greatest single known energy resource be hamstrung, but the great potential of the petroleum reserve would probably be permanently mothballed. Most of the refuges proposed include extensive State and Native selected lands. Under the terms of section 5b of the bill, the withdrawal of refuge lands would precede most land selections by natives and all State selections. The effect of this is to throw the Statehood Act and the Native Claims Settlement Act out the window. H.R. 5605, the Admiralty Island Preserve bill has been receiving wide publicity and testimony in conjunction with Mr. Seiberling's hearings on H.R. 39. Because it does not involve any refuge considerations, I am frankly puzzled by its referral to your subcommittee. I noted that on July 29 the Admiralty bill was reintroduced. Perhaps this action and the new referral will clarify this situation. The refuge proposals in Alaska as represented by H.R. 39 and other bills are significant in that many occupy the same lowland areas which represent oil and gas sedimentary basins. Exploration of most of these basins for oil and gas has been virtually nonexistent. The lengthy process of exploration and drilling to ascertain any evidence of oil and gas reserves effectively precludes an adequate evaluation of these areas given the present D-2 timing. Thus, it is extremely important that any of these refuge proposals include specific provisions and expressed intent for oil and gas exploration and possible development.

Unfortunately, I am not convinced that the national wildlife refuges, as proposed, would permit this exploration under their normal management procedures as evidenced by the experience with existing refuges in Alaska. At the same time, I think the development of the Swanson River oil field in the Kenai National Moose Range, which was permitted under extraordinary circumstances, has demonstrated that oil and gas exploration and production can be compatible with refuge management objectives.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to testify and I again thank the subcommittee for giving their time during this August recess to hear the views of Alaskans on this most critical land issue. Thank you.

Mr. LEGGETT. Mr. Tony Motley.

STATEMENT OF TONY MOTLEY, FORMER STATE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCE

Mr. MOTLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Tony Motley and I'm the former State commissioner of commerce. With me today is Professor Epps, here as agriculture and land use planning for the State of Alaska and to my right is Dr. Chuck Hawley who is president of the Alaska Miners Association and on my left is Roger Herrera, involved in oil exploration in the State of Alaska since 1961.

Mr. LEGGETT. It might be better if you used that microphone. Mr. MOTLEY. All right. Conceptually the Citizens for Management of Alaska Lands would like to see a concept, and would support a concept that would address all the needs of all the people. We believe that such a concept for the disposition for these vast amounts of Federal lands in Alaska, which we feel is necessary, is embodied in the proposal made by the Federal Land Use Planning Commission, which I understand you heard yesterday. We believe it's embodied in the proposal made by the Alaska congressional delegation, it's one that's been backed by the Governor and the State of Alaska, and one that we feel has been backed by every Secretary of the Interior that has addressed this issue since its inception. The current Secretary has not made his recommendations known yet. Such a concept addresses all of the national needs, it addresses wilderness, it addresses recreation and I think we find that wilderness is not recreation to most Americans. It addresses the national needs for oil and gas, for hard rock minerals, for forest products and possibly on a more parochial basis, the needs for agriculture and hydroelectrical development within the State of Alaska. That's one concept in which to address this issue.

There's a different concept that we believe takes a narrower approach because it concentrates on the wilderness aspect and that, we think, is the main thrust of H.R. 39. As you are well aware, title VI of H.R. 39 would take the 114.6 million acres of unreserved public lands and place them in wilderness status. It would also add the 32 million acres of existing Federal withdrawals in the State of Alaska and place them under the Wilderness Act. And our quarrel is not with the Wilderness Act, we consider it to be a good act, but rather, its blanket application over that amount of acreage at one time, an area that's one and a half times the size of California and since the enactment of the Wilderness Act in 1964, Congress has seen fit to place some 14 million acres across the country into wilderness status in 161 different parcels and in over 25 States. Now H.R. 39 would propose to take an area 10 times that size in one piece of legislation at one time and place them into wilderness. We think that by legislation this could force a change in, among other things, the recreational habits of most Americans. And so our quarrel is not with the Wilderness Act but its application in this bill.

We believe that the thirst that we think led to title VI of the bill, the thirst for wilderness, can be quenched and can be quenched in a proper and balanced approach as we outlined in the first concept of the bill and not drown out other peoples' needs, which we believe would be the result of H.R. 39 as it exists.

Governor Hammond, on one of the hearings before another committee, put it very well. He said, Alaska is called upon to be the oil barrel of the Nation and the national park of the world, and that is, in essence, the challenge that we're talking about, and that is, in essence, the basic conceptual splut as to what concept do you use in going about setting up the disposition of these vast Federal lands in the State? And we believe that that concept can be achieved through the first concept, or that aim can be achieved through the first concept that we outlined.

That concludes my remarks. Each of these gentlemen are experts in their own area and what they're going to offer you is 2 or 3 minutes of highlights and then we'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LEGGETT. Professor Epps.

STATEMENT OF PROF. ALLEN EPPS, AGRICULTURE AND LAND PLANNING

Professor EPPS. I will confine my remarks primarily to the agricultural aspects as they relate to the fish and wildlife refuges that are proposed in the various bills.

The national significance of fish and wildlife systems in Alaska will be more than significant, it will nearly be all encompassing on the national scale. The range will go from 77.1 to 92.4 percent of the Nation's system of fish and wildlife refuges will reside in the State of Alaska. These lands could provide opportunities for innovative management on the part of the Fish and Wildlife Service to increase the productivity of wildlife both for consumptive and nonconsumptive use as well as providing nationally significant production of energy, mineral resources, food and fiber that also reside on these lands. Alaska is blessed with the world's, or the Nation's largest block of virgin agricultural soils, a third or more of which is contained within the recommended refuge lands, or some 7 million acres in total. This land is very coincidental with some of the primary waterfowl habitat in Alaska. When one views this with experiences of the Lower 48, immediately one assumes conflict between agriculture and waterfowl habitat. However, when one places it in the Alaska prospective, and looks at it from a site specific standpoint, this is indeed not the case, and they may very well not only be compatible, but quite possibly complimentary.

Relative to the terrestrial animal habitat that is encompassed within these proposals and overlying agricultural soils, generally we find there is very little at the present time, primarily because these soils happen to fall under the climax equosystem of the Taiga, which is the black spruce, moss complex. This is relatively sterile of wildlife. With the introduction of agriculture and the diversification of this habitat, one would find an increase in the number and kinds of animals that would reside within this kind of system.